Guest they are not mutually exclusive. In the cases where Civil Enforcement has been pursued in courts, its been preceded by contempt votes in the house. The house has a number of options when someone violates a subpoena and refuses to appear. The house could arrest the individual, could send out a sergeant in arms and put them somewhere in the capital. They could arrest them. That was used in the 19th and early 20th century. It hasnt been used since the early 20th century. The second option is to refer the matter to the department of justice for prosecution, which is what happens when a private citizen is in contempt of the ongress. If its part of the administration, they are being advised by the department of justice, they are not likely to prosecute. They have the option of holding them in contempt. They can be arrested by the u. S. Marshal, which is a serious matter, but one that would have been approved by a court. In these matters where the administration has refused to comply with the subpoena, there is the legal issue that is involved. The administration claims there is immunity for white house officials. There is no merit to that rgument. When there is a legal divide between the executive branch and the house, its appropriate to go to court to get a legal resolution. Thats why resorting to the courts is appropriate in that particular circumstance. Host that step taking place today, House Resolution 430 authorizing Committee Chairs to pursue civil action and enforcement of their subpoenas in federal court. We will be covering that on the house floor throughout the day on cspan. If that passes and this process starts to go through the federal courts, what would be the role of the general counsel in that process . Guest the general counsel usually is the litigating lawyer for the house. On occasion, the house has hired outside help. The general counsels office has directed that itigation. Its only been around for 40 or 50 years. Before that, the department of justice represented the house. Over time, you had this growing sense that the department of justice is an executive branch ntity and might be looking out for executive branch interests. The house and senate develop their own general counsel office. Host you were appointed by democratic speaker and served when both democrats and republicans occupied the white house. When should the legislative branch conduct oversight . Guest i dont think theres any time when they should not conduct oversight. Its an inherent response ability of the legislative branch to conduct oversight over all government operations, including the executive branch, including the judiciary. Theres multiple reasons for it. One of them, the obligation to inform the public. Theres a duty to inform that the house has. To get information to legislate, you have to have subpoena power. The Supreme Court has routinely upheld that notion. Its an inherent power of the legislature to subpoena witnesses and documents in order to get information necessary to fulfill the oversight function, in form and function, legislative function. The subpoenas are enforceable and they apply to everyone. Host you were appointed by a republican. Do you agree with that reading . Guest i do. Thats not particularly controversial. There is a real value in congressional oversight in terms of informing the public. In order for congress to do its job, one of the fundamental things that congress does is legislate, obviously, and in order to legislate, Congress Needs to be informed. The Supreme Court has said repeatedly that Congress Wont know everything it needs to know through its own devices. It needs to be able to compel others for information. In the senate, it may need particular information to go about deciding whether to confirm anemone. Obviously, impeachment is talked about these days. Whether to confirm an entity. Guest i want to make one thing clear. I was appointed by Speaker Pelosi the general counsel is a nonpartisan position. It represents individual members in any matter in which there position is implicated. I represented a number of republicans on issues they had. If they were sued by third parties, we defended them. Carrying out the institutional prerogatives of the house as opposed to a partisan matter. Host is there a more conservative way of interpreting those institutional prerogatives and more liberal ways of doing that . Is there no daylight between an general counsel appointed under a democrat or republican . Guest you come up with similar pproaches. The function is to protect the institution of the house. The constitution was set up to have checks and balances. There is a tension that exists that was intended between the legislative branch and executive branch. When the executive branch is disregarding the legislative branch, its incumbent upon the house to protect its interests. Therefore, the house general counsel is protecting the interests of the house as an institutional matter to take it to court and resolve legal issues and get information the house needs. Host is there a point where oversight can cross the line into harassment or fishing expeditions . Guest there can be a line, obviously, but its a far and remote line. There is a presumption that congress is acting within its official prerogatives. The courts respect that. Unless it is blatantly clear that there is no legitimate legislative purpose, no legitimate oversight purpose, subpoenas need to be enforced. Guest i do agree in terms of he legal matter. Does congress have the power to emand certain information . They have a very broad power to do that. Anything that could be relevant to their legislative work is something they can demand. Theres a separate question about what they should demand. We are seeing that play out to some degree now with President Trump insisting that special counsel mueller seemed to do a lot of work for a lot of time with a lot of witnesses on certain subjects. Isnt that enough . Democrats rightfully are saying we have the power to continue o ask questions. Republicans are saying you may ave that power, but its not a good use of resources, its a waste of time. Some republicans are making the argument that congress has the power to do this i agree with mr. Nathan on that. Congress certainly does have the power to do that. Ost William Pittard and irvin nathan, we are talking about congressional oversight and the work of the general counsel of the house. Republicans, 2027488001. Democrats, 2027488000. Ndependents, 2027488002. If you have questions about how these investigations are pursued, now would be a good time to call in. Richard is up first out of california. Democrat. Ood morning. Aller good morning, everyone. Fundamental checks and balances in the government is one of the most important aspects of the constitution. We had a revolution against taking just for that against a king just for that reason. We were not being represented and we were being ruled. The Mueller Report, he wouldnt ecommend indictments because of the fact that you are not supposed to indict a sitting president , which has not been ruled upon by the Supreme Court, as far as i know. Heres so much here in the Mueller Report. Unfortunately, mueller did not give a report on the eport. Someone appointed by trump who advocated himself in that position skewed, almost lied about the report and what it said. To give the impression that he had been exonerated, that is way far from the truth. Ollusion is not a crime. Collusion is a behavior that can lead to conspiracy. He said there wasnt enough to rove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. They did not interview trump directly. Host lets take a second to talk about it. Guest i agree with a lot of hat the caller has said. I think, though, in response to bills point, its not a waste of time for the house to hold hearings to demonstrate what is in the Mueller Report and go further from it. Thats why we have the udiciary committee showing subpoenaed to don mcgahn and other fact witnesses. Its important to lay out for the American People whats in the Mueller Report. Theres a lot of misinformation caused by mr. Barrs statements, his letter and press conference. Its very important and the house has an Important Role to weigh out those facts to show the American People what is in the report, which is not an exoneration of the president. Host some of the underlying information from the Mueller Report the Judiciary Committee has been seeking for a while does the general counsel get involved in those kinds of deals . Guest it can be involved. Its up to the committee to decide who is going to represent it in connection with negotiations. I dont know exactly what the current general counsel the current general counsel is oing an excellent job. Hes extremely busy with a lot of litigation against this administration, which is telling third party not to comply with how subpoenas and efusing to enforce federal law in certain circumstances, including the obamacare statute, where the house is eeking to intervene to protect millions of americans. The house general counsel is extremely busy in litigation. I dont know that they are involved in the negotiations. Its possible. Its up to the chairman of the committee to decide whos going to represent them. Host when that litigation takes place, what court does this go to . What judge takes it up . Guest most certainly it will e here in federal court in d. C. , where the house or Relevant Committee will sue to enforce subpoenas. It was a savvy move following up on the point you just made about the negotiation yesterday and that if the house is suing to enforce a subpoena and the response on the others is a privilege exertion, we saw that play out in the fast and urious litigation. It went on for years and years. It took a long time to force the department of justice to urnover the documents. The court did eventually require producing most of those. T leaves some cleaner, quicker questions where congress can move to force subpoenas. The witnesses have flatly refused. Thats a question mr. Nathan itigated in the context of the u. S. Attorney firings 810 years ago now. Courts will feel more comfortable saying thats clearly improper, its illegal not to show up in the face of that subpoena. Host your recent column from the Washington Post from the end of may trump has the clock on his side. Do the courts care how long the cases take . A lot of the members of Congress Want that decision as soon as possible. Guest some courts do. In the recent case where the Rump Administration told their accountants not to provide information, the district judge in the District Of Columbia expedited the proceeding. He consolidated the motion with the merits of the matter will be heard in its entirety sooner. He issued a decision with a week thats within a week. He house has to move expeditiously as well so that there is a need for urgency on this matter. To demonstrate to the courts i hope the courts will recognize that the house needs this information now, not after the 2020 election. Court proceedings can take a long time. The judges have a number of ways to shorten the periods for briefing, to have oral arguments, to eliminate the need for life witnesses through affidavit and a number of other devices. They can move quickly. This administration is attempting to run out the clock. They are raising objections that have been resolved by the courts. There is no arguments that the white house aides they cannot object on a question by question basis. They have to appear and answer questions. They are refusing to do it. They are hoping to delay the court proceedings. That will be the test for the house and for the judiciary to move things along expeditiously so the American People can get information in time to make decisions about whats going on in the congress. Host north carolina. Republican line. Sue, good morning. Caller thank you for taking my all. I was watching cspan this morning. The democrats dont like the epublicans to bring up anything about this mess started when hillary bought and paid for that dossier. The best president s weve had were kennedy, Ronald Reagan and onald trump. Host that is sue in north carolina. This is george out of new jersey. An independent. Aller great show. With these hearings taking place, it is so obvious that barr is committing perjury and obstruction. Right there is the main problem the American People are choosing sides in a game of liars. With this clear perjury going on in front of the American People, we are doing nothing about it they have the right to arrest these people for perjury. Why dont they do it . Is it for their pensions that they dont do this . At least make an effort to uphold your oath to arrest people breaking the law in front of everybodys faces. Guest congress does refer witnesses from time to time to the department of justice for investigation and potential prosecution when Congress Things the witness has lied to a committee thinks the witness has lied to a committee or obstructed the committees work. Roger clemens was referred for allegedly lying about performanceenhancing drugs use. He was later acquitted. It can play out that way. Of course, where is the attorney general of the united states, the head of the department of justice is accused of lying, obstructing, you have the difficult situation it would be shocking to think the Department Justice will be prosecuting their head guest it is an executive function to arrest and prosecute individuals. Ormally, if perjury is committed before congress, there is usually a referral to the department of justice and they make a decision. Hey can prosecute. It is a felony. Its also a contempt of congress to engage in perjury before congress. If the perjury is blatant, if the disrespect for the house or the senate is so obvious, the house and senate have internal powers to punish. They can hold the individual in contempt, they can have a earing in the chamber of the house to find that there was perjury, demonstrating disrespect and contempt for the congress. After a finding of contempt, the sergeant and arms could arrest sergeant in arms could arrest the person. F they absolve themselves of perjury or Congress Ends they certainly have the power to call out perjury. Ive seen a number of members who also said whove also said some witnesses are not being truthful. Its a very rare thing. Ost when is the last time that they enforced that . Guest in the 1920s. The teapot dome situation, the relatives of the attorney general were subpoenaed. They were arrested. Hen they were arrested, they could file a petition to the courts to have their arrest challenged. That went all the way to the Supreme Court. The congress was vindicated in that case. They said the arrest was appropriate because of the refusal to comply with the subpoena. The person had to remain in jail until they appeared. The same would apply to any blatant disrespect for the subpoena, which includes, in my view, perjury. You come and blatantly lie, that shows disrespect for the house. Host grover is next in virginia. A democrat. Good morning. Caller there should be some ype of way the senators or congressman they work for he people. Why do we pay them if they refuse to answer our questions . Guest that goes to the fundamental frustration that congress often has with the dministration. It flips from time to time. When i was in the house, the house was controlled by republicans and the administration was controlled by a democrat. The house was quite frustrated by the responses we were getting from the Obama Administration then. Of course, now you are seeing a democratic untold house quite frustrated with the responses from the republican administration. Host does the senate have a general counsel . Guest yes it does. Host how often does the house general counsel work with the senate general counsel . Guest they are very collegial. There is communication between the two. There is a longstanding republican mayor and a longstanding democrat. When the senate switches, they just switch nameplates on their offices. They dont even change offices. And they work very well together. In my opinion and in my experience, they work well with the general counsel of the house. They are a repository of information in history. Host does a judge normally give more deference perhaps to a case in which the house and senate general counsel come together and argue . Guest it doesnt happen that often because the senate doesnt generally get the authority to go to court as frequently as the house does. Host why not . Guest , because of the roles of the senate which require a greater majority to authorize because of the rules of the senate, which require a greater majority to authorize litigation. Because of the organization in the house, when the Majority Party is there, they can authorize the house general counsel to litigate. So you find much more litigation conducted by the house. Though, there have been cases where both the house and senate have come together, and i think the courts do give great deference to that situation. Guest one circumstance in which you would see a role for the house and the senate, if the house has issued a subpoena and is looking to enforce its own subpoena. And the other half of congress doesnt have a role, one place both houses certainly have the role is when you talk about impeachment. I go back to the previous callers questionnaire. If you are particularly frustrated with the response from a particular official in the administration, mr. Nathan talked about one thing you might do is hold a contempt hearing i talked about one thing you could do is referred to law enforcement. A third thing you might do is proceed down the impeachment path not of the president , but, impeachment of a particular Administration Official. It is just another tool that congress has that involves both the house and senate. Guest it would require a two thirds vote by the senate to result in conviction a very difficult thing to do in a polarized or partisan atmosphere. Host how involved is the general counsel in a impeachment proceedings, whether it is a president or another Administration Official . Guest that would depend on the desire of the house leadership and the committee that is nvolved. I was involved heavily when i was general counsel in an impeachment proceeding, which resulted in a unanimous vote of impeachment of a federal judge who had been accused and then proved by the senate of taking bribes while on the bench. He was convicted and removed. By the senate. N that case, the committee asked the general counsels office to be involved. During the impeachment proceeding, they went to court to try to block the impeachment and when they did, it was the general counsel that responded and got the case of dismissed. Host it as just after 8 30 on the east coast. We are talking about the role of the general counsel of the house of representatives and congressional oversight. Joining us is irvin nathan, former general House Counsel and William Pittard, general House Counsel as well. Tom out of new york on the republican mind, go ahead. Caller good morning. I would just like to say that these two guys you got here, they dont know anything about what they are talking about, they really dont. [laughter] host why is that, tom . Caller because they are lying. All these charges are trumped up by the communist party, the democrats. They could not win at the election and now they are all mad. Look at them, look at their faces. You can tell. Ost got your point. Democrat line. Good morning. Caller good morning. Thank you for cspan. The caller that just called need to read the mueller eport. There is so much in there and i hope that our friends get it house party. I am concerned about our country. This man has people conned and they need to wake up and realize they are being onned. Look what he has done. None of the promises he has promised. So, everybody, please make our country. Save it. I hope you guys can save t. Host that was lindsay out of indiana. Irv nathan, two different views from the callers today. Your position on the role of the courts and the Legal Process and made that kind of debate and discussion about politics. Guest in terms of the courts, my view is that legal issues are presented in the courts need to act quickly to resolve hose legal issues to allow the house to carry on its constitutional functions. With respect to the constitutional function, as to whether those callers, a think it is extremely important that the house layout in public with witnesses, on live testimony on television, exactly what is in the report. There has been spain about that, the attorney general made his statements about what he thinks is in the report, the president has done the same, thirdparty witnesses did that before the Judiciary Committee, but no one will be it were to do it as well as bob mueller. I agree with the earlier caller that mr. Mueller was paid for by the american public. He has done a 448page report which is very dense reading and i think it is important that he up the a at the Judiciary Committee and explain, layout in plain english what they found in the investigation. I think it is also important that the witnesses he identified like mr. Mcgann and others come and testify and speak clearly so the American People will know exactly what is in the Mueller Report, what this president did, and it is important that they also understand what the president is doing currently to obstruct the investigation of the house. That is the role of the court, to eliminate obstruction and allow the house to carry out its constitutional responsibility. Guest i dont know that i disagree with that, in terms of the role of the court. Think the role of the court is a limited one, to allow congress to get the information that it is seeking by subpoena and then republicans are perfectly right to fight in the court of Public Opinion about whether this is a good use of resources or not. That is the politics of it. Are the democrats overreaching, or are these important ssues . That is what is supposed to play out with the in congress and within the committees. The court simply has a job to facilitate and make sure that can happen. Guest let me say, i think both the democrats and republicans ave an obligation to carry out the constitutional responsibility to do oversight and to get witnesses to appear, to cooperate, and to get information out. I think where the report is in divide is in interpreting what happened. But to have witnesses there to give the facts, i think both sides have an obligation to encourage that and to get the nformation out so the public can interpret the information they can argue about it,. But they cannot allow the tonewalling so that no one knows exactly what happened. Host in terms of the role of the court can we talk about when the Court Decides it doesnt want to get involved in the politics of a certain issue . There was a case from earlier this year, the District Court throughout the House Democrat lawsuit looking for an injunction against President Trumps use of emergency border all funding. This is what the judges ruling said to the House Congress has several political errors in its quiver to counter threats to its power. Intervening in a contest between the house and the president over the border wall, will intend will the court in a our contest nearly at the height of Political Tension and would risk damaging the Public Confidence that the court is a function of the judicial branch. When does the court decided to hear these cases and when will it not . Guest it is a judgment. I think the judge was wrong about this. In the Obama Administration, the house led by republican john boehner, took the president to court claiming that it was a violation of the appropriations clause come out that congress has the power of the purse. There was a claim that money was being spent those not appropriated for insurance payments in obamacare. The republican judge, a judge appointed by president bush upheld the houses lawsuit and the house had standing to bring the suit and was considering that before it was result. This decision was made by a judge recently appointed by President Trump. It runs it not only contrary to the decision by previous judge collier in the obamacare case, t also runs counter to the decision in District Court in akland where a federal District Court agreed with the representations of the plaintiffs that there is a violation of the appropriations lause of the constitution, and has entered a preliminary injunction against using any of this money that was declared in the emergency, which had been rejected by both houses of ongress in the appropriation request for building the all. So, this decision does not really have much weight, because the injection already exists. But it is pretty ridiculous where environmental groups in california were able to stop the spending, but the house, which sought to stop the spending which had not been authorized by it, and which impacted his ability of the power of the purse, is thrown out. Im advised that the house has appealed the decision and i expect a very different result in the court of appeals. I think it will be reversed, and the house will be allowed to move ahead with this lawsuit. Guest while i agree with mr. Nathan was to whether as to whether the d. C. Court should have considered this lawsuit by the house, both of us joined in an amicus brief but argued that point in that case, that the house should be able to bring this case to court. That the house is a party that is injured in a very substantial way, itself, because it has the power of the purse. It is supposed to be the house. That appropriates money. And yet, the allegation is the administration has gone off and went money without an appropriation from the house. So i agree on that. I do think that this is an evolving area of law, theyre just havent been a lot of cases in which i believe this is the second case in which the house or the senate has sued to enforce an ppropriations power. The other one was the one nathan just discussed, where Republican House sued democratic administration, saying, you have gone off and spent money on the Affordable Care act that we did not appropriate. And their, just as mr. Nathan said, the court did find the house had standing to bring the lawsuit. And indeed, the administration was found to have acted unlawfully. Guest i think it is very unfortunate that it depends on who the judge is and who the parties are and what the Political Parties are. You have a situation here where when president obama was in office, a judge on this very Court Allowed a house to sue over the same issue, on whether money had been appropriated and were being properly spent by the it executive. For the house to come in, it was appointed by President Trump, and to disregard that president it is true, it was not a binding precedent, he could make his own judgment but the difference, to say, the house can sue a democratic president , but it cant sue a republican president when there s a republican appointee making the decision, it is a very unfortunate thing, and i think the court needs to Pay Attention to the appearance of that situation. And especially when the same issue is litigated and is in court in another jurisdiction, and where the result has happened, then notion to say that the house does not have standing was extremely illadvised and that is why i think it will be reversed in the court of appeals. Host from illinois on the republican line, good morning. Aller good morning. I wanted to say that the government has got unlimited resources. The individual that is subpoenaed has to use their personal resources to defend themselves already because they are already considered guilty prior to anything else. They will have to pay for their lawyers. The democrats will line up 10 people to ask the same question. If they have a different word, they will get them for lying to congress. Then, they also have the power to send a bunch of to their house to drag them out in the middle of the night without indictment or anything and take hem to jail. On the first point on limited resources, does the general counsels office have unlimited resources . Guest it does not. And i not go quite as far as the caller, but i think the notion the caller is alluding o is a real one. Both mr. Nathan and i have represented individuals who were getting inquiries from the house or the senate, receiving subpoenas from them, and it is a very intimidating process to be on the other end of that. Because these are individuals who do have limited resources. They are often government ureaucrats, essentially. They have jobs with decent alaries but they certainly dont have a lot of money. And to litigate an issue like this would be if ordinarily expensive. Just what a asked ordinarily expensive. But general counsels office does have many lawyers at their disposal and the committee as well. Congress, for better or for worse, as you have heard through this program, in general, i think it is a good thing that congress has substantial power. It is important in terms of checking the executives. But those powers are intimidating when they are coming to bear off a particular individual. Host what is your advice for somebody who receives a subpoena from congress . Guest well, to hire a good lawyer, for one. [laughter] and there is often a way to work with the committees. Litigating can be asked ordinarily expensive litigating can be extraordinarily expensive. So a lawyer can encourage the witness on how not to be unhelpful. Guest i want to disagree with the callers premise here. The government does not have unlimited resources. The general counsels office is small. When i was there, there were six lawyers. Maybe it has been expanded a bit, but it is still less than 10 lawyers. Second, the subpoena power is extremely important in our constitutional system to get the information that needs, both to legislate and for oversight. N my experience, in the normal course, when you are dealing with regular citizens, first of all, they are asked originally to cooperate without subpoenas. They are invited to justify when they have factual information that can be useful. It is only when they are recalcitrant but subpoenas are ssued in most cases. In this situation, where people are being asked by the administration with all the resources of the administration, and the tRump Administration. To defy subpoenas, the power is really on the other side. All the witnesses have to do if they get a subpoena, and bill is suggesting, is to work with the committee, to cooperate. In my experience, the committees are accommodating, in terms of the timing, when you have to appear, they will keep the proceeding to a period of time that is reasonable and focus questions in a reasonable area. So i think in most cases where people are subpoenaed, there is cooperation, there is accommodation. It is only in these highprofile cases where there is resistance and basically obstruction, that this tension exists. And it is one that is created y the executive branch, not by the overbearing legislature. Host from dayton, ohio. On the democrat line, good morning. Caller good morning. I have the constitution in ront of me and in article ii it makes provisions for the removal of the president and Vice President resignation, or inability to discharge their duties. Yet, the Justice Department says that the president cant be indicted. And if they cant be indicted. They cant be prosecuted. You say that he is not above the law, how can both of those hings we can do without a president. Hes not that much of a person. He can be replaced by a Vice President. Anybody else in congress. We have 535 people who can replace him. Guest i think the caller is conflating two different things. One is whether the president can be indicted, can face riminal charges while in office. That is an open question. The Supreme Court never considered that. The executive branch has offered its opinion that the president cannot be indicted while in office. That is an open question. There is a separate procedure, impeachment, whereby the president or the Vice President , or various other executive officials could be removed by congress. That takes the house and senate. And as mr. Nathan said, it takes a two thirds vote. Host on the independent line from minnesota good morning. Caller good morning. A couple of quick comments. Number one, you two will never have to worry about being called by jerry nadler, since neither of you have been disbarred or committed felonies. Which leads me to my second comment. At nadlers hearing, that is why 90 of the country holds congress in contempt. They should have to subpoena them. It has really gotten ridiculous. Did you watch the display esterday, my god, what a dog and pony show would any of that testimony been allowed in court . Hearsay, making up scenarios all on their own with no basis. For a guy from 50 years ago we live in his past, trying to cash in again . I tell you what, i have seen a lot of bad things, but this country is going down the [beep]. Host the differences between the courtroom and a congressional hearing room. Guest in a congressional hearing, hearsay is permitted and it is not generally in a court of law. I think what the caller fails to recognize, i didnt see the hearing yesterday, i am not commenting on the people who testified, but it is obviously because of the obstruction by the tRump Administration, presenting mr. Cgann and other former members mcgahn and other former members of the administration to come forward and testify, and explain the facts as they know them, that has put the house committees in this posture. That is why the courts are going to be needed to enforce these subpoenas. To get the actual witnesses that gave the information to the mother administration and put it out before the American People who are generally not going to read a 450page report but can understand what they see or hear or on television from the witnesses. That is the preference of the Judiciary Committee and so far, it has been blocked. That is why ultimately negotiations and Court Enforcement will do. Im hoping it can happen timely so people can get the information in a timely way. Host you said much depends on who the judge is in the courts. Who decides who the judge is . Guest there is supposed to be a lottery system. It is by chance. Any District Court, there are a number of federal District Court judges, the clerks spin a wheel when a case is filed, and whoever comes up is the judge who handles it. There is also a related case situation where if the case has been brought earlier, and that s what happened in the District Of Columbia recently, some private parties brought a lawsuit dealing with the appropriations and payment on the border wall. A wheel was spun and a judge was chosen. So, when the house filed its lawsuit, it went to the same judge. It basically is a random selection. Done by chance. Judges have a lot of discretion, particularly in terms of how fast things ove. I think all the judges, and certainly the courts of appeals and the Supreme Court after recognize that there is an urgency to this. I think the house has to demonstrate, has to act in accordance with that, and when asked by the court, will be complied with. Host so there is not a few judges that you keep running into . Guest no, it is a different judge every time. Host on the republican line, ou are next. Caller i just wonder, with all the investigations going on, it seems like bill clinton getting on the airplane with loretta lynch, acting like it is going to be covered up, and never rought up. To me, that was the biggest crime. There was nothing to investigate, he committed a crime. And i dont understand why he s not being prosecuted for it. It is beyond me. Host republicans on capitol hill have asked for investigations into that. Can they walk into the general counsels office and say, hey, you need to look into this . Guest they wouldnt walk into the general counsels office. They would try to encourage a particular committee in the house to encourage that or encourage the d. O. J. To investigate. I think it goes to, it brings up what is a challenging issue in that we had a chance during the trump campaign, to lock her up, when he was referring to hillary clinton. And now, you heard Speaker PelosiSay Something on the order of she would like or he wouldnt paying her to see or it wouldnt pain her to see donald trump behind bars one day. If we have Public Officials committing crimes, sure, nobody should be above the law in our country. They should face criminal justice. On the other hand, there is certainly something banana republicesque about threatening ones political pponents with jail time. I think it is, maybe it is an unfortunate byproduct of the polarization we see today that folks continue to go to that. Host joseph in florida on the democrat line, good morning. Caller good morning. Ok, i have read about 40 or 50 pages of the mueller eport. First of al, i think it is kind of mindboggling, if it is true, that all of congress has not read the report yet. It is not outlawed, people just dont want to read it. Anyway, i came across part of it where it talks about some russian individuals entering our country illegally, as illegal immigrants. And they had some kind of phony. Visas, they were taking photographs, starting phony rallies, etc. , sending the information back to russia to go on social media with these things. My question is, where are these people and what are we doing about it . Ok . Guest i dont have any answers there. Think it is important to understand, in relation to your previous question, john. The house general counsel does not conduct the investigation. It is anybody there to provide legal advice to the institution and to members, both democrat and republican and in the ircumstance where there is litigation, to defend ndividual members both republican and democrat, and to represent committees and the house as an institution. So it is a nonpartisan office. And office that is designed to litigate and to give legal advice about the legal interests of the house as an institution. That is what it is doing. So it doesnt look for individuals who may have violated a law. That would be up to the department of justice. Host a last call from michigan, dean on the independent line. Caller i keep hearing you guys talk about obstruction of justice. Ll i have heard was that there was no collusion, no obstruction of justice from the Mueller Report. You keep going on and on about this. I dont understand. What am i missing here . Guest you are missing reading the report. I suggest you read it. In the second volume, it is totally untrue that there is any conclusion that there is no obstruction. T lays out at least 10 instance which 1,000 prosecutorss have signed a petition saying that they see an attempt to preclude the other investigation from Mueller Investigation from getting access to information. I see obstruction of justice in hat the tRump Administration is doing in refusing to comply with house subpoenas, tending third parties, including Deutsche Bank and mr. Trumps accountants not to comply with house subpoenas. That is obstruction. That is what i think is going on. Nobody who has read the Mueller Report could conclude, and as he said himself in his press conference, he did not conclude that there was not obstruction. He said if he could exonerate the president , he would have. He said he did not exonerate the president with respect to obstruction, and he gave that matter to congress to look and see what should be the consequence of that abstraction. Obstruction. Host do you miss being in the general counsels office . Guest no, because i think it is a very active time. I think i am too old to do it. I think doug and his staff are doing a good job. I applaud the effort they are making and i wish them all the best . Guest i do miss it. It is super fun to think about these issues and to litigate hese issues. But i agree, it is in good hands now. Host William Pittard and irvin. And folks in the general counsels office, i appreciate your time. For stopping by. Coming up, discuss wednesdays planned vote in the house on a 1 trillion spending package and efforts to reach a broader spending agreement between congress and the white house. And editor in chief david on the political and legal disputes between white ouse and house of representativ epresentatives offer congressional oversight. In 19. House Republican Leadership alking about their legislative and ongoing muellerations about the investigation. The house approve a vote to on against acti attorney general william bar and former white House Counsel don o the mueller ss t re